I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. This is after all, the state legislature that is trying to identify Christianity as the "majority religion" and has been agressively acting to limit womens access to Plan B, through legislation supporting pharmacists who don't feel they have to do EVERY aspect of their job....
Missouri stopped providing money for family planning and certain women's health services when Republicans gained control of both chambers of the Legislature in 2003.
But a Democratic lawmaker, in a little-noticed committee amendment, had successfully inserted language into the proposed budget for the fiscal year starting July 1 that would have allowed part of the $9.2 million intended for "core public health functions" to go to contraception provided through public health clinics.
The House voted 96-59 to delete the funding for contraception and infertility treatments...
"If you hand out contraception to single women, we're saying promiscuity is OK as a state, and I am not in support of that," Phillips, R-Kansas City, said in an interview.
Others, including some lawmakers who described themselves as "pro-life," said it was illogical for anti-abortion lawmakers to deny money for contraception to low-income people who use public health clinics.
"It's going to have the opposite effect of what the intention is, which will be more unwanted pregnancies and more abortions," said Rep. Kate Meiners, D-Kansas City.
The other alternative is for low-income women to give birth to more children, which is only likely to drive up the state's costs to provide services to them, said Democratic Rep. Melba Curls, also of Kansas City.
The family planning program that was canceled in 2003 had provided state grants for women's health care services. Anti-abortion lawmakers had battled in court for years to try to prevent that money from going to Planned Parenthood, which also provides abortions.
This year's provision, inserted by Rep. Margaret Donnelly, D-St. Louis, would have avoided the Planned Parenthood controversy by only providing contraception through public health clinics. It primarily would have affected women who lack private insurance but who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, which provides contraception under federal rules.
Donnelly said it was a first step to restoring the services of the deleted program.
"The average Missourian believes that as part of women's health, they should be offered in a medical clinic a voluntary choice of contraception," Donnelly said.
While deleting the contraception language, lawmakers left in tact most of the rest of Donnelly's language also directing money to such things as screenings for breast and cervical cancer and sexually transmitted diseases. But they approved Phillips' additional language specifically preventing the money from going toward family planning services or abortion referrals.
The Missouri Catholic Conference also opposed the birth control funding.
"State taxpayers should not be required to subsidize activities they believe are immoral or unethical, relating to contraceptives or abortions," said Larry Weber, executive director of the state Catholic Conference.
Key sentance for me.
Who would be affected by this? Women who can't afford any better.
Oh well, at least Representative Donnely tried to help ensure the average poor or middle class womans ability to afford contraception with aid from the government...
I wonder if they've voted to put all the funding SAVED from helping these woman maintain their sexual independance towards providing from all of the poor disenfranchised children who will be emerging because Mama couldn't afford to be on the Pill. This isn't going to stop promiscuity or stop women from having sex, and besides, WHOSE BUSINESS IS IT ANYWAYS? NOT the legislatures.
And in other news, the Kansas State Board of Education, always the epitomy of conservative experimentation, has decided that parents don't have to say "I would rather NOT have my child in Sex Ed" Now they have to say "I want my child in Sex Ed" and are introducing measures to insist on Abstinance only education. What will this lead to? A generation of Kansan women who don't know what a condom does, and think that an STD must be some sort of growth hormone found in milk or chicken.
After all, why should they know any of that if they're remaining good little Christian Virgins until marraige? There are the same brand of people in the same state, who tried to introduce "intelligent design" as SCIENTIFIC THEORY!
I'm beginning to fear more and more for the everyday woman in the United States. With healthcare terribly expensive, and the government doing all it can to take money away from programs that help us maintain a good standard of living, I fear for the children who will come of the conservative religious movements latest attempts to seize control of a womans morality and reproduction.
We are going backwards to the medieval times.
Need a fiefdom anyone?
If woman were so worried about their rights then why don't they just control their bodies through abstinence?
Because women have a right to be sexual or not be sexual. Why do you ask that question instead of, "Why can't men respect the decisions women make for their own body. If a women choses to have sex then let her chose the method of birth control without government interference? What is it that makes a man feel that he does not have to respect a women's ability to think and moniter her own body?"
By the way, if men are so worried about women getting knocked up or getting abortions, why can't they just practice abstinence? Why don't they put a implement on the market that would prevent men from being able to have sex with women? Why don't they tell all men, "We don't trust you to make the right sexual decisions for taking care of the women you have sex with, so we're going to put this chastity divise over you so that you can not take advantage of women out there."
And...with regards to Missouri if they take away birth control, it seems like there are going to be a lot more unhappy men paying child support for 18 years. Hope the system has been created to hold these men accountable for their sexual promiscuity too.
AMEN
That is so wrong to say that it's ok for men to have sex but women should give up their right.
who said that
Oh my goodness what are they thinking? Women deserve the same rights as everyone else and if they want to have sex, then at least they are being smart about it and using protection! The government should be happy about that. Now it's just like they are saying they are a bunch of sluts who need to practice abstinence when we know it's not possible in today's society. I mean, what if a girl got raped? Where is she supposed to go?
Now you know why we pronounce it "MISERY"!!!
Poor you!!!
Good for you for trying to make light of this. Is it everyone's philosophy or just the men there?
Your right its not. This is why we should withdraw government from issues like sex ed, providing those health services.
Granted those services should be their for the poor. But we should let charities and bussinesses run them, and leave the government out of it.
The Catholics and the other groups who feel strongly about it would just have to compete over who can provide the most cheap or free services.
The government does NOT belong in the decision making role in areas of how much and when I tell my children about the birds and the bees.
We need to quit being so embarrassed about sex and talk to our kids. If your promoting abstinance or birth control your kids won't listen to you if your ashamed or embarrassed while your talkinga bout it. Nor will they listen to their history teacher whom they don't listen to in history class either.
Exactly! Government doesn't belong in our bedrooms.
You think this doesn't affect men, too? Remember, it takes two people to make a baby. Just because it's the woman's body doesn't mean that the man isn't responsible for it. In fact, federally, a man is at the mercy of a woman's choice if she chooses life. But that's a separate issue entirely.
--Mike
I am a catholic because my mother was one, but I think that god's work is done and the catholics should be doing all they can to support only the poeple who have the financial means and education to have the children in our socitiy. Its not fair to the children for mommy and daddy to tell their kids that they have to be on public assistance because they are poor. And its not fair for the taxpayers to pay for some poor catholic family to have 7 kids.
~maybee~